[fsge]

Knowing the inventory cleaning of K5II here and there, K3 should come in line soon

[Winder]

Knowing the inventory cleaning of K5II here and there, K3 should come in line soon

I think A lot of people are expecting a September announcement. The K-50 & K-500 are both shipping and a K-5 replacement that is announced by September would give Ricoh a full product line-up (not counting a FF) going into the holiday season. From a sales point of view that is pretty important and it has been awhile since Ricoh/Hoya/Pentax has been able to do that.

Ideally they would roll out a FF and a K-5 replacement before the holiday buying season and make a huge splash.

[Aristophanes]

Golly gosh darn it.

Everything I've been saying in this thread about mobile OS's and connectivity this industry guy just said:

"And camera makers need to eliminate the painful process of uploading to a computer, then posting to your favorite website."

Sensor size is what matters and the trend is for larger, says Aptina: Digital Photography Review

Not a bad summary done in Grade 10 speak which is fine for DPR.

I'm going to send him an invoice.

[Raffwal]

Retorical question: What kind of digital FF camera hasn't made it's appearence yet then?

Pink.

[paranoia23]

Pink.

bam!!

[Clavius]

Pink.

(I'm faking my laugh... but the tears are real though.)

[bossa]

@ Uluru:

Remember VCR's? They had 100's if not 1,000's or moving parts which had to be manufactured individually and assembled by hand. They have been replaced by solid state players of several descriptions, some of which have no moving parts at all (iPad). To think that camera companies are going to keep manufacturing shutters, pentaprism VF's and mirror-boxes with PDAF systems into the distant future is naive. The cost of energy is going to get higher until Peak Oil and/or climate change causes a major adjustment to our behaviour and expectations - this will surely drive manufacturers to simplify or go bust.

The reliability, functional experience, whether a product achieves your desired level of acceptable image quality and how much it costs are the only things I can think of offhand that are needed to be satisfied. Everybody would have their own score level for each of those points I would think and hence the outcome would be different for most of us. Making decisions based on inherited cultural values appear to matter most to aficionados whereas professionals want most of those parameters I mentioned to be satisfied before taking the plunge into any type of camera, particularly a new type.

I suspect there are research teams working on shutters with no moving parts right now (possibly something as simple as sampling the sensor output to a memory buffer chip?). We may even see leaf shutters make a comeback.

I am no expert but I do think I have a fair idea of what I am prepared to accept but that of course is always moderated by circumstances.

[Uluru]

@ Uluru:

Remember VCR's? They had 100's if not 1,000's or moving parts which had to be manufactured individually and assembled by hand. They have been replaced by solid state players of several descriptions, some of which have no moving parts at all (iPad). To think that camera companies are going to keep manufacturing shutters, pentaprism VF's and mirror-boxes with PDAF systems into the distant future is naive. The cost of energy is going to get higher until Peak Oil and/or climate change causes a major adjustment to our behaviour and expectations and this will surely drive manufacturers to simplify or go bust.

Which is why every device we today make is a power hungry, battery and electricity draining device, especially when multiplying the sheer number of them produced cheaply. I know very well of times when not a single battery was needed to make a photograph, and now we can't imagine anything that isn't powered by electricity. And we don't even ask twice, "Do we really need it"? We hate even the first question why.

Is that really "a progress"? In one way it isn't, because if we are afraid of asking "Why?"consecutively, we are not human beings anymore, but animals.

However, the cell-powered instantaneousness also is a form of progress too. Say, in this forum we are not talking about art of photography — we are talking about our ability to make an image. Those two are different. The latter is our everyday life.

Never before everyday people had an ability to experience "creativity" in such an easy way — or make an image instantly with a mere press of a finger and all is immediately visible. That is a fascinating phenomenon in a visually communicating culture, not possible without use of electricity and battery power.

But things most of the time end there. I don't want to dwell into future prognosis and trends, but I also find that some things are constant; for every 1% of people who want think more and see beyond surface of things, there is 99% of others who want the sheer superficiality of matters.

1% of all those who dab into painting will be Rembrandts, 1% of those who press shutters will be Avedons. And they will create something memorable only when they turn their back to the rest of 99%, and when they turn their back to fad. "Turning their backs" means that such rare people take the control of destiny, and of their vision in their own hands, refuse to be manipulated by desires of the mob, or presets of an instantaneous imaging device.

[Aristophanes]

@ Uluru:

Remember VCR's? They had 100's if not 1,000's or moving parts which had to be manufactured individually and assembled by hand. They have been replaced by solid state players of several descriptions, some of which have no moving parts at all (iPad). To think that camera companies are going to keep manufacturing shutters, pentaprism VF's and mirror-boxes with PDAF systems into the distant future is naive. The cost of energy is going to get higher until Peak Oil and/or climate change causes a major adjustment to our behaviour and expectations - this will surely drive manufacturers to simplify or go bust.

The reliability, functional experience, whether a product achieves your desired level of acceptable image quality and how much it costs are the only things I can think of offhand that are needed to be satisfied. Everybody would have their own score level for each of those points I would think and hence the outcome would be different for most of us. Making decisions based on inherited cultural values appear to matter most to aficionados whereas professionals want most of those parameters I mentioned to be satisfied before taking the plunge into any type of camera, particularly a new type.

I suspect there are research teams working on shutters with no moving parts right now (possibly something as simple as sampling the sensor output to a memory buffer chip?). We may even see leaf shutters make a comeback.

I am no expert but I do think I have a fair idea of what I am prepared to accept but that of course is always moderated by circumstances.

The weak link of all cameras today are buttons and shutters, both of which are ample on mirrorless. Electronic shutters have been tried and they have their own issues. Look to the video sector for lots of talk there.

Mirrorless still relies on zoom motors and helicoids and complex moving gearing to line it all up. These are also more likely to break than a quality DSLR mirror system.

Mirrors have been made so reliable they set the professional standard. That's what decades of investment created. There is no such standard for mirrorless. They have no track record and, frankly, they are feeling pretty cheap in the hand these days.

Systems with complex moving parts fly in the air and walk across Mars. They can be made economically reliable and efficient. The most economical system is the one you've paid for, you know, can service, is a sunk cost, and your customers are both familiar with and have confidence in.

One of the issue I suspect with mirrorless is there is no incentive for manufacturers to make more durable gear. The tech changeover is still ongoing so they go cheaper to make a profit knowing that the customer will likely dump the model in a few years anyways. Matures technologies are not like that; like today's automobiles which have become durable (and far more rust resistant) by a factor of 3 since 1980.

[Barry Pearson]

Systems with complex moving parts fly in the air and walk across Mars. They can be made economically reliable and efficient. The most economical system is the one you've paid for, you know, can service, is a sunk cost, and your customers are both familiar with and have confidence in.

One of the issue I suspect with mirrorless is there is no incentive for manufacturers to make more durable gear. The tech changeover is still ongoing so they go cheaper to make a profit knowing that the customer will likely dump the model in a few years anyways. Matures technologies are not like that; like today's automobiles which have become durable (and far more rust resistant) by a factor of 3 since 1980.

I was employed in the computer industry from 1968 until I retired. During that time most major advances involved replacing mechanical parts & actions with silicon / software / firmware, etc. As soon as that could be done, costs dropped and innovations accelerated. Moore's Law and advances in materials science carried things forward. The failure rate per task is vastly better when the mechanical systems can be removed.

In the air, we have "fly by wire". On roads, those old carburetors and distributors have gone. Increasingly mechanical dials are replaced by electronic read-outs. I'm not aware of pentaprisms and moving mirrors being used for imaging on Mars! Where the nature of the overall task demands it, yes, keep the moving parts. At the moment the nature of the task of getting from A to B demands movement. But within the moving system, it is typically a good idea to eliminate moving parts that are not explicitly tied to the nature of the task for the system. The overall task for a camera is to capture images, not to channel light from the lens to an eyepiece.

[Kunzite]

Unless you're talking about the task of blindly capturing images, the viewfinder is important

[thibs]

The overall task for a camera is to capture images, not to channel light from the lens to an eyepiece.

Completely agree, why use a mirror in a camera if you don't need one.
The thing is, we do as long a EVF is crap.
Second, the issue in a DSLR being you don't see what happens when mirror is up can actually be a good thing: you know (more or less if you want) when the picture was taken. Take a NEX in burst mode: you don't know. If you let the EVF freeze to let you see the picture just taken, well... you don't what happens at the same time hence, no advantage on a DSLR.
Moreover, judging on a pic you just took when you should look at next pics you need to make is completely stupid.

[Digitalis]

There is no such standard for mirrorless. They have no track record and, frankly, they are feeling pretty cheap in the hand these days.

unless it is a leica.

[Kunzite]

Leica is a rangefinder, though, and AFAIK the optical rangefinder system has a mirror - or prisms, which are close enough

[Barry Pearson]

Unless you're talking about the task of blindly capturing images, the viewfinder is important

We need a means of aiming, framing, and analysis, leading up to triggering the image capture. This discussion is about how to achieve that.

I have a "red dot sight" that fits into the hot shoe of my camera. I can look at a scene directly (not via any viewfinder) with the red dot sight in my field of view, and where the red dot is in the scene will be the centre of the sensor. The red dot sight is like a "head up display". Perhaps we will have those on cameras one day? I'm just making the point that there are lots of potential options.

Completely agree, why use a mirror in a camera if you don't need one.
The thing is, we do as long a EVF is crap.
Second, the issue in a DSLR being you don't see what happens when mirror is up can actually be a good thing: you know (more or less if you want) when the picture was taken. Take a NEX in burst mode: you don't know. If you let the EVF freeze to let you see the picture just taken, well... you don't what happens at the same time hence, no advantage on a DSLR.
Moreover, judging on a pic you just took when you should look at next pics you need to make is completely stupid.

I agree that EVFs are poor in some aspects. So are OVFs, but in different aspects. My OVF doesn't show highlight clipping or shadow clipping before I press the button. It doesn't optionally show the scene in monochrome. And the image disappears for a fraction of a second when I take the photo. (Etc). I'm making the point that we have got used to the limitations of OVFs, but perhaps we need a jolt to see what we are missing. (I have been using Pentax SLRs for over 45 years. I do realise OVFs often actually do their job!)

OVFs on SLRs contribute to both weight and size. Sometimes I think my K-5IIs is too big and too heavy, while sometime I think it is too small. (I don't ever think it is too light!) It is easier to make a camera temporarily bigger than temporarily smaller (and I use a battery grip for the purpose). I can imagine a camera with better flexibility of size and weight using EVFs. Especially if we can take it off the camera (using WiFi?) for aiming in difficult positions.

I think EVFs will gradually take over from OVFs & SLRs - the question is how long will this take? Will Pentax make a significant move in 2014? Or 2020?